Judge rules Obama will stay on Georgia ballot

reply to post by SG-17


No doubt. They're throwing a fit over a guy that's half black. Can you imagine the conniption fit they would have over someone that's Mexican?

Obama is not special. He is no better than any other American in the fact that he has to abide by the laws of our country. For someone to say that he is "above frivolous laws and court proceedings" is admitting that he, for some reason unbeknownst to me, has some kind of magical power and precedence over everyone else.

The title of President does not entitle anyone to respect or higher regard. Congratulations, you got voted in, but that does not make you a better human being and exempt from commonplace law that all other people are required to be a part of. You are a celebrity, sure, by publicity alone, but you are not above the law. The Constitution does not place the president above the law, therefore he should be required to abide by it.

With that said, any other human being would have been issued a bench warrant and be held in contempt for refusing to appear and making a mockery of the judicial system. I know that know matter how frivolous and ridiculous a case against me is, I am still REQUIRED to attend the court proceedings to defend myself.

As far as natural born citizen - just because you were born on United States soil does NOT make you a natural born citizen. This issue is ridiculous and stretching as it is. That is simply ONE of the requirements of such - the other being that both of your parents are citizens of the United States of America. By the logic of some people, if foreigners are here on vacation and have a child, their child is then a Natural Born Citizen and eligible to become President of the United States. Little known is the reason a natural born citizen is required for the presidency - the fact that people with allegiances to other nationalities and countries are not fit to control the daily operations of a foreign country - just as family member can not be used as a reference on a resume, just like a spouse is not much of a credible interest in a criminal trial. Why is that? Because it is a conflict of interest for all parties.

With that said, in my eyes, and what should be EVERYONE else eyes, Barrack Obama is NOT a natural born citizen of the United States unless he proves otherwise. The same goes for Mitt Romney. The same goes for any "anchor babies" of illegal immigrants. To deny that is to deny the entire reasoning for including the natural born clause in the Constitution, and denies the Constitution itself. But hey, Obama has already proved that he does not give a flying crap about the Constitution, so why should this matter?

It doesn't. Blind followers will continue to support Obama as some kind of herald savior, despite the fact that he is a continuation of a rights removers and Constitutional deniers that have come before him. People will continue hating him yet many will vote for someone who is no better and the cycle with continue. Either way, what is going to happen is Obama is going to continue his unconstitutional presidency, or a new unconstitutional presidency will begin, and the United States will continue down the inevitable path to tyranny.

Originally posted by gwydionblack


As far as natural born citizen - just because you were born on United States soil does NOT make you a natural born citizen. This issue is ridiculous and stretching as it is. That is simply ONE of the requirements of such - the other being that both of your parents are citizens of the United States of America. By the logic of some people, if foreigners are here on vacation and have a child, their child is then a Natural Born Citizen and eligible to become President of the United States. Little known is the reason a natural born citizen is required for the presidency - the fact that people with allegiances to other nationalities and countries are not fit to control the daily operations of a foreign country - just as family member can not be used as a reference on a resume, just like a spouse is not much of a credible interest in a criminal trial. Why is that? Because it is a conflict of interest for all parties.

That is exactly what makes you a Natural Born Citizen. Just because you birthers keep saying otherwise doesn't make it not true.

Chester A. Arthur's father was an Irish citizen, yet he was a natural born citizen and became President.

Anyone, unless the children of foreign diplomats, born on United States soil, including both incorporated states and unincorporated territories like Guam, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa are automatic NATURAL BORN CITIZENS with ALL of the RIGHTS of one. Including the opportunity to become the PRESIDENT. As long as they live here continuously for 14 years.

Originally posted by gwydionblack
Obama is not special. He is no better than any other American in the fact that he has to abide by the laws of our country. For someone to say that he is "above frivolous laws and court proceedings" is admitting that he, for some reason unbeknownst to me, has some kind of magical power and precedence over everyone else.

I am above frivolous lawsuits and court proceedings that have no legal pertinence to me. Does that make me better than the president? I dare you to challenge it. Take me to court over something frivolous and please allow me the opportunity to demonstrate to you how my very expensive lawyer will remind you I am above it and just like in Obama's case here, the judge will agree.

If reality did not just happen, you might have had a point. Damn that reality!

The title of President does not entitle anyone to respect or higher regard.

Go walk into the oval office right now and take a seat at the desk. According to you the president gets nothing you do not get so come pick me up on AF1 when you get done carving you was here in the desk.

Congratulations, you got voted in, but that does not make you a better human being and exempt from commonplace law that all other people are required to be a part of. You are a celebrity, sure, by publicity alone, but you are not above the law. The Constitution does not place the president above the law, therefore he should be required to abide by it.

Congratulations, you got signed onto ATS, but that does not make you an expert in legal matters and therefor everything you are writing are the ignorant ramblings of misplaced anger, not real anger over actual things that really happen.

With that said, any other human being would have been issued a bench warrant and be held in contempt for refusing to appear and making a mockery of the judicial system. I know that know matter how frivolous and ridiculous a case against me is, I am still REQUIRED to attend the court proceedings to defend myself.

With that said, you are just plain wrong.

As far as natural born citizen - just because you were born on United States soil does NOT make you a natural born citizen.

Unfortunately it does.

This issue is ridiculous and stretching as it is. That is simply ONE of the requirements of such - the other being that both of your parents are citizens of the United States of America. By the logic of some people, if foreigners are here on vacation and have a child, their child is then a Natural Born Citizen and eligible to become President of the United States. Little known is the reason a natural born citizen is required for the presidency - the fact that people with allegiances to other nationalities and countries are not fit to control the daily operations of a foreign country - just as family member can not be used as a reference on a resume, just like a spouse is not much of a credible interest in a criminal trial. Why is that? Because it is a conflict of interest for all parties.

With that said, in my eyes, and what should be EVERYONE else eyes, Barrack Obama is NOT a natural born citizen of the United States unless he proves otherwise. The same goes for Mitt Romney. The same goes for any "anchor babies" of illegal immigrants. To deny that is to deny the entire reasoning for including the natural born clause in the Constitution, and denies the Constitution itself. But hey, Obama has already proved that he does not give a flying crap about the Constitution, so why should this matter?

It doesn't. Blind followers will continue to support Obama as some kind of herald savior, despite the fact that he is a continuation of a rights removers and Constitutional deniers that have come before him. People will continue hating him yet many will vote for someone who is no better and the cycle with continue. Either way, what is going to happen is Obama is going to continue his unconstitutional presidency, or a new unconstitutional presidency will begin, and the United States will continue down the inevitable path to tyranny.

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

You people with strong opinions based on facts you all have wrong should probably get some facts that are correct and see how you feel about those instead.

Originally posted by Nite_wing
reply to post by xuenchen

 

No, I don't mean money across the table (or under it). I suspect there was influence of other nature (and this is merely my opinion because I have no proof) such has
1. A ruling against Obama could have serious ramifications and precedent in other states forcing him totally off the ballots in 23 other states.
2. the possiblity of physical injury to himself or his family. Judges are human and have the same fears as anyone else,
3. the promise of a future position in the Federal Judiciary,
4. fear of uprising within the population,
5 the total destruction of a Constitutional Republic.

I am more than merely familiar with Operation Greylord in Chicago. Instead of pressure coming down AGAINST the Judges in Greylord, I suspect pressure coming down ON this judge from sources we cannot even imagine.

Personally I think the fact that I have said from the beginning that this was a SETUP makes more sense -Read the non-existant history of this judge, he even made up an American name for himself (Michael) like obama did (Barry)www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also look at this article:
obamaballotchallenge.com...-1609

reply to post by Nana2


I'm assuming as neither of those links provide anything close to real evidence, and one of them basically just says, "this guy is a fraud" this is just more birther BS.

You birther guys need to stop making up stuff and instead see if you can prove your point with facts.

The amount of lying I've seen coming from the birther camp makes Obama look like a saint. And that IS saying something.

Honestly, if there was an ATS rule that said, "if you post lies and claim them to be facts you will be banned" the place would be emptied of birthers in about 20 minutes.

Originally posted by N3k9Ni


Is that what all this is about? Are people afraid of foreigners coming here and having babies that might become President?

Yes. And unless I missed the first Native American President, every President to date has been a product of "foreigners coming here and having babies"....From George Washington to present.

America the melting pot with a healthy dose of irony and xenophobia

Do you know what is interesting? You can look at a chart of GDP over the past 150 years...and see the correlation between economic downturns and bursts of intolerance and xenophobia, bigotry and racism.

This last pseudo-depression it was focused mostly only Hispanics and middle-easterners.

In the past economic downturns it was the Irish and Jews, before that Germans.

Economic downturns challenge us...insecurity, stress, some engage the lizard brain...fear and hate...lash out at the "other", misplace blame.

History shows that as the economy recovers, the hate and fear mongers retreat. We are slowly emerging from that time both economically and socially. The sun is peeking through the clouds just a little. Even the uproar about Mosques and "Sharia Law in the USA!" seem a bit embarrassing looking back over the last two years. birtherism is evaporating as the economy is slowly healing.

Viral intolerance is symptom of social-economic stress. It has happened consistently throughout history, both here and around the world. It tests us as individuals and as a country.

Just my opinion

reply to post by Indigo5


"Viral intolerance".. I like that .

That describes very well what is happening. In this age of "viral videos" and memes, this is a manifestation of people needing to feel they are a part of something. The rise of social media has created a mindset where people are so disconnected from the reality of their own lives that they cling to anything that might make them feel socially relevant.

Originally posted by Manhater
I don't agree with the ruling. Obama was in contempt. He showed no respect for the court and if I was the judge. I would of issued a bench warrant.

If you want me to rule in your favor then show some respect. Don't disrespect my courtroom.

edit on 3-2-2012 by Manhater because: (no reason given)

Hi Manhater
I don't agree either. He was in contempt folks! No excuse whoEVER he is!
How is it that he gets this special treatment? Judge bought off? threatened? I do not know.

Maybe EVERYone that is to be in court from NOW ON should be a no show . Then reason with them , it is only fair to be 'forgiven' , that Obama didn't show and got away with it, so we should be allowed a LAME excuse too!
It's only FAIR, right?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm glad to hear that those who know the law weighed in on this one. Good job to the judge.

As far as I can see, there was never any other ruling that could come from this.

reply to post by Still

 

No, the birthers won't go away... I think it's like a mental illness. Only hours of exposure to the truth can help, but they refuse to see. They close their minds and eyes when truth is presented. And going back again and again to "obamareleaseyourrecords" only feeds the disease.

But it has to be their decision to get clean.

I've been pretty gracious all around about admitting the errors in my lay analysis of this issue where his Father's parentage was concerned. I was wrong, and the court has settled that...by all appearances. I don't have to like the law, I just have to feel that it's been followed...and after years of trying, at least ONE aspect of this issue has been put to rest.

Will Birther's rest? Well...On this issue, they must. Where is there left to go when the ultimate decider of law says it's legal? The Super Court? They aren't touching this one...and have had the chance to prove differently. So..Yeah, I think rest comes for the Father side of the equation anyway. There is still a birth certificate we'd like to see SOMETIME while this man is still alive to answer for whatever the hell it says, he is so determined to hide.


I'm going to note one last thing. Three other men I could find have faced this question in living memory and all 3 of them took the question of birth and legal status in stride and put it to rest as a side issue which most people never even knew happened. Who?

John McCain
Barry Goldwater
Dwight D. Eisenhower

All 3 men were questioned on their legal right to seek the Presidency. All three men had one thing or another, however technical or silly it was, which made others question it. ALL THREE MEN produced the documents requested to those who could validate them.....AT THE TIME OF REQUEST...and without fanfare of hassle. Now MOST people know about McCain. My mother was a "Goldwater Girl" in her teens, as they were called back then, and didn't even know he'd been called to explain his own Birth issue with Territory vs. State.

Almost NO ONE I've talked to had any clue that Eisenhower produced HIS Birth Cert as a matter of course to establish himself as legally qualified for the Office..but he did and it's historical record.

So why can't the Clown in Chief produce one document when such great men like General / President Eisenhower could, and without issue? Obama damn sure isn't better, in ANY way. He just THINKS he is...so the nation has had over 3 years of controversy and discontent because this moron couldn't lay 1 document on a table to show others in the physical world.....OVER THREE LONG YEARS AGO.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


He has, people just keep saying it is false doctored or whatever else. To me all question on this was ended when they found the birth announcement in the newspaper. Because really I don't think some cabal somewhere ordained the man from birth to be President. This is just simply a case where people are 1.) Just racist, face it some people will never get over the fact that something other than a white protestant is President. 2.) Technology showing it's bad side. Do you think it would have been behind Eisenhower's ability to produce a fake birth certificate? Let's get real back in his day it was probably little more than a piece of paper with a pressed seal on it. No watermarks or anything to validate it.

Originally posted by SeekerLou

I don't agree either. He was in contempt folks! No excuse whoEVER he is!

Try something for a moment...take a deep breath ....and now google up seperation of powers or checks and balances.

If the Judicial branch..and even state level courts could compell the Executive branch...to speak, attend trial, be subject to minor court proceedings, then the Judicial branch would rule Congress and the President.

A sitting President is subject to impeachment by the legislature, not the whims of an administrative judge in Georgia and thank god for that.

Constitituion anyone?

Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

You can subject a President to a court trial, but first you must impeach and remove them from office.

BALANCE OF POWERS

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

He has, people just keep saying it is false doctored or whatever else.

At this point, maybe that Birth Certificate was real. I doubt it, seriously. I'm just questioning the reasons now that the legal status of his Father seems to be answered for how it could or could not play into Obama's status.

The Birth Cert we saw though? Let me put it this way... If I were sitting here at my desk with a clean, crisp and properly certified copy of my Birth Certificate sitting in front of me and wanted to make people think it was fake.....or just keep questions rolling...how would I do that?

Well.... In this day and age, I suppose the best thing I could do to raise questions about the legitimacy of my perfectly legal document is to go playing with it. Perhaps pull it into Photoshop and layer the living daylights out of things......forget to use the blend and smooth tool, so those jaggies and white edges stay so obvious a grade schooler could find them, and then present THAT out as being as legit as the the REAL one I started it.

The new version need not even say anything different....just have ALL the hallmarks of being heavily modified and edited for unknown reasons.


Now... ^^^^ That is what Obama did by handing out that cheap excuse for a 'legal document' awhile back. He gave his supporters something to fight with, but made sure enough was still messy to keep the fires and fighting going on through his term.

MAYBE....it's all what it seems to be, and he's just deliberately playing this for the hate and divisions it's causing across our nation.

Originally posted by N3k9Ni
reply to post by SG-17

 

No doubt. They're throwing a fit over a guy that's half black. Can you imagine the conniption fit they would have over someone that's Mexican?

Look, I understand that you may find the "birthers" to be on a fool's errand. But why do you need to make this racist? I may not agree with the "birthers", but I don't think you should toss racism around so quickly.

Watch what happens when son of Cuban immigrants Marco Rubio is talked about in conservative circles. Conservatives love him, and it has nothing to do with his race. It's his politics.

Conservatives do NOT love Obama. And it is also about HIS politics, rather than race.

I promise you--if these questions had been around about Bush's possible citizenship, then no one would be criticizing those "birthers". But because it is Obama, everyone is quick to ridicule and make up motivations.

I wish we could disagree with Obama or question things about his past and everyone would realize it is because of his politics....not race.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


This just shows how little you actually know about Obama's birth cert and the ridiculous things you're will"ng to believe to allow your ignorance to be maintained. It's much more a comment about you than the validity of his BC.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


This just shows how little you actually know about Obama's birth cert and the ridiculous things you're will"ng to believe to allow your ignorance to be maintained. It's much more a comment about you than the validity of his BC.

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


We said Birthers are racist, not conservatives. Unless you are insulating that all conservatives are birthers.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

This just shows how little you actually know about Obama's birth cert and the ridiculous things you're will"ng to believe to allow your ignorance to be maintained. It's much more a comment about you than the validity of his BC.

Wow.... I'm impressed. You didn't insult me once, you directly attacked me on a personal level 3 times...Maybe 4 depending on how one chooses to read it. You managed that in just 2 sentences. Well, heck... I'd say you made an accomplishment there, and I don't mind the fact you posted it TWICE.

It's not often someone is so vicious on a strictly personal level, they can pull that off without looking like as hateful as the words are. You managed. Well done......

Oh...and it wasn't a reply to you, by the way...but that doesn't phase ya does it? Anything to have another reason to mercilessly attack fellow ATS members again.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Just stating the facts. If you actually bothered to read more widely (i.e. More than birther propaganda) you'd realise that the conspiracy you're pushing, that the state government of Hawaii and Missouri and GEorgia are in cahoots with a secret cabal in federal government to foist an imposter in as president, for some unknown reason, is endlessly silly and nonsensical and not backed up by any evidence.

But no, instead you say you know with certainty that the BC is fake, because some fringe republican and birther websites lie about the real facts, and you're to ... Lazy, or inept, or maybe your an ideologue, whatever it is, you choose to only listen to one side of the story without checking your facts.

So yeah, just stating the facts.

Originally posted by LIGHTvsDARK
Just read through the decision. WOW!

The decision has just changed the definition of NBC. He maintained that ANYONE born in the US is a NBC. So that means all the anchor babies are eligible to be President.

Pretty soon, NBC will be changed to mean anyone that becomes naturalized citizens.

Welcome to another step in One World Government folks and the elimination of the sovereign country of the US of A.

Read through the Supreme Court decision on U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark, it cites dozens cases, going all the way back to 1608 in England, where the term "natural-born" refers specifically to persons born as citizens, whether because they were born on English (and later American) soil, or because their parents were citizens. The only exceptions to this provision in English Common Law were if the child was the offspring of a member of an invading army, or if they are the child of a foreign Ambassador, because Ambassadors are said to carry the sovereignty of their home nation with them.

Here's the entire ruling at FindLaw.

If you just do a word search on the document for "natural-born" you can read all of the citations of previous cases where it clearly defines "natural-born" as pertaining to someone born on the nation's soil, regardless of parentage (but for the two specific exceptions I noted above). When the framers of the Constitution wrote the document, they were fully aware of the British common law definition of "natural-born," for there was only one legal definition the word could have possibly had by that point. It was a well established legal term for nearly two centuries by that point.

You probably won't find a better digest of all the case law pertaining to this matter, at least up until the time of this decision. This decision has never been overturned nor has there been any legislation to try and replace it (it would require a Constitutional Amendment probably).